V For Vendetta Pro Terrorist - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-23-2006, 08:36 AM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 03:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




the Ewoks were the greatest cinematic tribute the Viet Cong ever got.
__________________

__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 03-26-2006, 12:25 AM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Tiger Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Everglades
Posts: 4,740
Local Time: 04:34 AM
See, I saw V for Vendetta and thought it was actually more Pro-Government than anything.
The whole point is to create chaos in order to restore real order. From chaos comes a new government, one accepted by the people and for the people. Sound familiar?
Without the Boston Tea Party or Shay's Rebellion, etc, we wouldn't be here today. Many of us.

The movie didn't promote anarchy, it promotes change into a government that best serves the people.
__________________

__________________
Tiger Edge is offline  
Old 03-26-2006, 12:28 AM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:34 PM
I'd believe it, I am hoping that it retains the anarchy versus statism argument - it is self serving to say that the conservatives a grip on statism.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-26-2006, 10:20 AM   #34
Anu
Editor
 
Anu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: There ain't no place I'd rather be, baby won't you carry me back to Tennessee
Posts: 1,695
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Clearly, the comic had anarchist principles and part of why its author has disowned the film has to do with how those may have been watered down.

Now, I saw the film and loved it. I don't think any movie "based on" a previous primary text is obligatged to be "faithful." Film is an art form of its own validity, period.

Since I'm seeing a lot of pejorative misuse of the term "anarchy" on this thread, people might want to know that the term literally means without government. It's a negation; what takes the place of government in a free and stateless society is up to the people.

Since so many people are greedy, violent, pathological creeps, many assume that anarchy will be horrifying and that the state is a necessary evil. I, however, disagree.

As an anarchist and a pacifist, I thought I should emphasize what anarchists mean when we talk about anarchy: a non-coercive, cooperative, decentralized society. A synonym for many of us is "libertarian socialism."

Some anarchists set up a website about the movie. It's interesting and worth a look.

http://www.aforanarchy.org/
__________________
Stand up to rock stars!
Anu is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 02:05 AM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:34 PM
How exactly is socialism compatiable with anarchism or even libertarianism?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 06:13 PM   #36
Anu
Editor
 
Anu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: There ain't no place I'd rather be, baby won't you carry me back to Tennessee
Posts: 1,695
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Of course, most libertarians in this country are staunch capitalists, but exceptions do exist.

Briefly: Libertarian in personal freedoms, socialist in terms of sharing wealth.

Or

Another abbreviated answer from Wikipedia.

Libertarian socialism is any one of a group of political philosophies dedicated to opposing coercive forms of authority and social hierarchy, in particular the institutions of capitalism and the State.

The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: management of the common good (socialism) in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimizes concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). It attempts to achieve this through the decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the collectivization of most large-scale property and enterprise. Libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, since, according to socialists, when private property becomes capital, it leads to the exploitation of others with less economic means and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms.
__________________
Stand up to rock stars!
Anu is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 06:55 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 03:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
How exactly is socialism compatiable with anarchism or even libertarianism?
haven't you ever heard of anarcho-communism or libertarian socialism? as anu pointed out, common management of a society's productive mechanisms is not necessarily relevant to, nor dependent on, a state apparatus.

anu - i thought i was the only libertarian socialist on this board.
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 07:06 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
How exactly is socialism compatiable with anarchism or even libertarianism?
Well, that is interesting. Let me put it this way, they're at least as compatible as libertarianism and neo-'conservatism'.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 02:06 AM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:34 PM
In what respect? It seems like comparing entirely different things.

Foreign policy: Interventionism versus Isolationism

Economic policy: Socialism versus Neo-Liberalism

The issue that I have is the concept of individual property rights not being part of the society - without that how can other individual rights possibly be guaranteed?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 02:10 AM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in San Leandro, CA
Posts: 6,340
Local Time: 12:34 AM
I just saw this movie this past weekend and was very happy with it.

Several points of interest was the "America's war" comment. Initially, I interpreted this as the war that "Dubya" started with Iraq that kept spreading (N. Korea, Sudan, Iran, etc.). But later in the movie, there is mention of a civil war in the "former United States", which sent a chill down my spine. This country is already very split - a quick look at the last two presidential elections shows this. Instead of unifying the country, Bush has torn us apart even more - the fact that he won in 2004 is more a sign of how weak Kerry was as opposed to how strong Bush was. But could this be the beginning of something bigger?

Fortunately, there's a reason our country has had one government for over 200 years - the power to vote people or regimes out of office. It happened in 1992 after 12 years of a Republican led White House, and it may happen soon again. Even with the Civil War in the 1860's, the goal wasn't to go back to a king or dictator, but rather to form a new union - to keep a different version of democracy going.

But this movie made me think of a line from another film I enjoy, "National Treasure". In that movie, Nicolas Cage's character comments how the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence were committing high treason - and he's right! In England's mind, these men were the equivalent of modern day terrorists! They were trying to undermine the current regime. But in our mind, these men are heroes - they helped form a new country.

Current terrorists aren't as "elegant", preferring to commit cowardly suicide attacks on the innocent. But in their minds, they are the heroes.

So where does the line of terrorism and an oppressive government begin and end? We've already have proof that Bush lied (see my topic on Bush's lies). We have proof that he was illegally tapping communications from "every day people". Where does the White House oppression end? What act of rebellion finally makes one a "hero"?
__________________
http://u2.interference.com/attachments/forums/signaturepics/sigpic11661_2.gifI always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 10:07 AM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:34 AM
I saw V for Vendetta about 10 days ago but I’ve been traveling so I really haven’t had a chance to comment on it. In my opinion, the film wasn’t particularly fresh or memorable. I enjoyed it well enough and it did have some thought provoking moments. But there were also these little things that just bugged me. For example, Natalie Merchant’s character is taken to V’s lair where she spends the night. In the morning, she’s wearing pajamas, and she’s got all kinds of changes of clothing. Where did she get these from? I also don’t buy her willingness to go with him to see him conduct his “symphony” near the beginning of the film. This movie just didn’t blow me away and I’m not sure how “deep” the message really was. It seemed a little too political, a little too "Bush is the bad guy."

I'm more interested in the question raised by doctorwho. What makes a terrorist? Certainly blowing up buildings or taking people hostage are terrorist acts. But then how how is terrorism different from war? In war you bomb buildings and blow them up. In war you take people prisoners and refuse to let them go (unless the other side surrenders of course). What is terrorism if not acts of war done outside the "rules." Terrorism merely reveals the true ugliness and horror of war. And throughout history people who've chosen to ignore the "rules" of war (which is really an absurdity when you think about it--rules about killing people. . .any close study of war reveals how ridiculous this is) have been considered "terrorists" including some heroes of American history (Francis Marion, William Tecumseh Sherman and his March to the Sea).

The key difference between "war" and "terrorism" is in the attacking of the innocent. Innocent people--civilians--and "innocent" buildings (non-military structures like the World Trade Towers). Native Americans attacking white settlers were considered "terrorists" (though that word didn't exist in those days) because they often attacked any white settlers, seeing any and all whites on their land as part of the problem. Terrorism is also characterized by it's zealous nature and it's unwillingness to negotiate. Terrorists generally aren't willing to compromise their goals. Another characteristic of terrorists is that they generally act without the blessings or support of a state. The Nazis committed all sorts of atrocities on innocents but generally are not termed terrorists.

According to this definition was V a terrorist? Yeah, I think so. And yet, he is the "hero" of this film. Why? Because the audience is expected to agree with his views.

To tell the truth, terrorist is a perjorative term we apply to those whose views we disagree with who attack us in ways we deem "unfair."
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 10:25 AM   #42
New Yorker
 
The Disciple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,587
Local Time: 03:34 AM
This was a brilliant movie.
__________________
The Disciple is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 12:06 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 05:04 AM
I don't think the attacking of innocents is a particular difference between war and terrorism. Many innocents were deliberately targeted during the wars of the 20th Century. Also, a zealous nature is not a unique characteristic of a terrorist, many world leaders during conflicts and even today have displayed an unwillingness to negotiate and zealous nature.

I do agree that terrorist is a term which can be interpreted in many different ways. For example, some suggest terrorists are cowards for using the tactics of suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and roadside bombings. But from the terrorist view, what other method of attack to do they have against a superior military force? Is blowing up a military convoy vehicle with roadside bomb more or less cowardly than dropping a missile on a house filled with innocents from a remote-controlled drone because it was thought to be a military target? People have different views depending on their position in the conflict.


And go read V for Vendetta, much better than the movie.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 07:27 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 08:34 AM
To what end, terrorism? That would be the key element in evaluation.
__________________
nathan1977 is online now  
Old 04-06-2006, 02:49 AM   #45
War Child
 
a-mole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Groningen, Netherlands
Posts: 665
Local Time: 09:34 AM
ok, in the beginning i was doubting the movie (or rather: fearing the wachovsky brothers would have mistreated it)
anyways.. saw it last night and loved it

I mean, ok.. it has all been there (oppressive governments, some criticism of systems etc) and the whole symbolism speech was spot on what i had just studied for my communication theory class

However, I loved it

very good movie, some very fine acting (kudos to Hugo Weaving for playing such an expressive charcter without being able to use facial expressions) and overall visually awesome

go see

P.S. of course it is pro-terrorist. His actions can be defined as terrorism and we are on his side, but then again, who does he bring terror to? the ruling elite - terrorizing their own people. terror against terror.. in my little world full of greytones (lacking black and white) that is a rather positive thing
__________________

__________________
a-mole is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com